What happens if he wins the nomination?

[photoshooter]

Ron Paul isn't the only one you have to worry about.

Poll shows Johnson could impact electoral votes with party switch - The Santa Fe New Mexican

The citizens of the country are tired of only having two choices. But the political parties have become entrenched. The last time a political party died off and political landscape changed was in Lincoln's era. Now the just keep reinventing the parties to grow closer and closer to being the same party, under two different names.

Both end up screwing our constitution, both end up moving us toward socialism/progressivism. Those two terms are VERY closely related. They are two sides of the same coin. Progressives exist in both parties.

In 1948 - under Henry Wallace - the Progressive movement actually embraced Marxism openly. They've since shoved it into the closet again, but the sentiments are still there. Dems = Progressive Marxists, GOP = Progressives of Mussolini's stripe.

So, as you look at the GOP field, just ask yourself: how fast is the candidate you're looking at likely to take our country to progressive, big govt hell?

Fortunately, people are waking up to the fact that both parties mean MORE BIG Government.

 

[ATM]

Were I to vote strictly on my principles, I would have been able to cast one ballot and one ballot only for anyone who has been President since the Constitution was ratified.

Regardless of your voting strategy, let your voice be heard in other ways to impact change.

A wiser voting strategy will never save this nation, only an educated, moral and wisely principled electorate.

 

[KG1]

Ron Paul isn't the only one you have to worry about.

Poll shows Johnson could impact electoral votes with party switch - The Santa Fe New Mexican

The citizens of the country are tired of only having two choices. But the political parties have become entrenched. The last time a political party died off and political landscape changed was in Lincoln's era. Now the just keep reinventing the parties to grow closer and closer to being the same party, under two different names.

Both end up screwing our constitution, both end up moving us toward socialism/progressivism. Those two terms are VERY closely related. They are two sides of the same coin. Progressives exist in both parties.

In 1948 - under Henry Wallace - the Progressive movement actually embraced Marxism openly. They've since shoved it into the closet again, but the sentiments are still there. Dems = Progressive Marxists, GOP = Progressives of Mussolini's stripe.

So, as you look at the GOP field, just ask yourself: how fast is the candidate you're looking at likely to take our country to progressive, big govt hell? Not as fast as any Democrat would.

Fortunately, people are waking up to the fact that both parties mean MORE BIG Government.

Of course Johnson is gonna poll favorably in a New Mexico poll.

But the PPP blog cautioned, "Just because [Johnson is] doing that in New Mexico doesn't really say anything about his ability to do it on a broader scale, but it shows that with folks who are familiar with his message he has support across the spectrum."

The only thing Johnson will accomplish by switching to Libertarian is insuring that Obama will be re-elected therefore speeding up and furthering the process toward progressive socialism.

 

[Cerberus]

Of course Johnson is gonna poll favorably in a New Mexico poll. The only thing Johnson will accomplish by switching to Libertarian is insuring that Obama will be re-elected therefore speeding up and furthering the process toward progressive socialism.

Wake up, we have been there for some time.

 

[dross]

Regardless of your voting strategy, let your voice be heard in other ways to impact change.

A wiser voting strategy will never save this nation, only an educated, moral and wisely principled electorate.

If you could show me one time ever in history in any place where that's existed I might be optimistic about it happening.

 

[ATM]

If you could show me one time ever in history in any place where that's existed I might be optimistic about it happening.

It's the only thing worth striving for.

I'll never be optimistic that any particular voting strategy can deter a society from getting exactly what that society wants.

Sometimes a society just desires to fail and be ruled. Well, we will be if we can't talk them out of it.

I don't see how we can stop that from happening simply by getting there more gradually.
In fact, the shock of letting it happen even quicker may be a better strategy for those who believe that the solution ultimately resides in the electorate and not the political institutions.

 

[KG1]

In fact, the shock of letting it happen even quicker may be a better strategy for those who believe that the solution ultimately resides in the electorate and not the political institutions.

If this were the proper strategy then what reason would there be to vote for anything other than Democrat for any office? Let's just all vote Democrat and support Democrat legislation and be done with it.

 

[Lead Head]

If you could show me one time ever in history in any place where that's existed I might be optimistic about it happening.

There is such depth to the above post and even though nothing is directly inferred, some of us know exactly what the OP is saying.

DO YOU ???!!!!

 

[dross]

From The Princess Bride:

Westley: A few more steps and we'll be safe in the Fire Swamp.
Buttercup: We'll never survive.
Westley: Nonsense. You're only saying that because no one ever has.

 

[ATM]

If this were the proper strategy then what reason would there be to vote for anything other than Democrat for any office? Let's just all vote Democrat and support Democrat legislation and be done with it.

Ron Paul is the only reason I can currently come up with.

I'll keep thinking, though.

 

[tsbolton]

Republican

Will probably vote for who ever wins Republican nomination.Other side scares me even though he never does anything good or bad.

 

[mydoghasfleas]

It's the only thing worth striving for.

I'll never be optimistic that any particular voting strategy can deter a society from getting exactly what that society wants.

Sometimes a society just desires to fail and be ruled. Well, we will be if we can't talk them out of it.

I don't see how we can stop that from happening simply by getting there more gradually.
In fact, the shock of letting it happen even quicker may be a better strategy for those who believe that the solution ultimately resides in the electorate and not the political institutions.

 

[photoshooter]

The cool thing about having Dr. Paul win the GOP nomination would be two fold:

For the first time in their existence, the GOP party apparatus would have to embrace a liberty based platform. (Reagan was VERY close, but I believe Dr. Paul to be a couple of steps closer).

Second, the Dems will have to run against a candidate who has a strong track record for liberty, and will show their candidate to be far from that mark.

In effect a liberty candidate in the GOP slot moves us much close to the Jefferson vs Hamiltonian arguments of 1800, instead of the Roosevelt/Wilson Progressive vs Progressive argument of 1912 and beyond.

 

[dross]

The cool thing about having Dr. Paul win the GOP nomination would be two fold:

For the first time in their existence, the GOP party apparatus would have to embrace a liberty based platform. (Reagan was VERY close, but I believe Dr. Paul to be a couple of steps closer).

Second, the Dems will have to run against a candidate who has a strong track record for liberty, and will show their candidate to be far from that mark.

In effect a liberty candidate in the GOP slot moves us much close to the Jefferson vs Hamiltonian arguments of 1800, instead of the Roosevelt/Wilson Progressive vs Progressive argument of 1912 and beyond.

If liberty was important to most voters Ron Paul would have a great advantage.

 

[ATM]

If liberty was important to most voters Ron Paul would have a great advantage.

If he gets the nomination, it would at least gain liberty a chance to be a topic of discussion again.

It's probably not important to some simply because they've never even been exposed to the idea.

 

[dross]

If he gets the nomination, it would at least gain liberty a chance to be a topic of discussion again.

It's probably not important to some simply because they've never even been exposed to the idea.

I have my doubts that it's ever been that important to very many people.

Looking at history, it appears to me that people mainly begin to have an issue with oppression when two things occur. One, their ability to make a living is threatened, and two, when they think they have a reasonable chance to win a conflict.

Right now, even with the recession, most people's lives in this country are better than 99% of the humans who have ever lived on this planet. Their children's bellies are full, they don't have to work too hard (relative to most other humans who have ever lived on Earth) and they know they can't win a conflict and they're likely to lose all the good stuff they have.

We have lots of real freedom, in some ways more than we've ever had. Yes, in the abstract our freedom is being taken. For instance, I've never smoked, but I think smoking bans in private businesses are tyranny. Yet, the smoking ban benefits me personally, in a real way. In the abstract, it's tyranny. Most people like the smoking bans. In their mind, it gives them more freedom, which in a way it does, concretely. You and I know it causes them to lose their freedoms, but most don't see it that way.

You realize that to most people when you say they're stealing our freedom daily, you're a nut job, right?

I've been trying to convince people of this stuff long before this forum and site were here. I've had very limited success. Most people think their lives are pretty good, and in fact, relative again, to most people who have ever lived on this planet, our lives are a paradise, a fantastical place only dreamed of by most people who have ever been alive.

They ain't buying what we're selling.

 

[ATM]

You realize that to most people when you say they're stealing our freedom daily, you're a nut job, right?

Well, yeah. That and all the other stuff I say.

I've been trying to convince people of this stuff long before this forum and site were here. I've had very limited success.

Then take what I'm saying in the challenging/encouraging fashion I'm striving to present it. Don't let a little apathy set you back. The American revolution was never supposed to end with the war.

They ain't buying what we're selling.

Then find a way to repackage it.

Heck, China is the only buyer for what America is currently selling - debt.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

I voted "I DO support Ron Paul, and I will vote for Obama if Ron Paul is NOT nominated.", but I could get behind Huntsman or Johnson (neither is likely to get nomination). If one of the R®-Socialists get the nomination, I'll vote for the guy who only has 4 years left, rather than give socialism a fresh 8 year stint.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

I have my doubts that it's ever been that important to very many people.

Looking at history, it appears to me that people mainly begin to have an issue with oppression when two things occur. One, their ability to make a living is threatened, and two, when they think they have a reasonable chance to win a conflict.

...

I hate that you're right. Unfortunately, people aren't going to return from their anal-spelunking expeditions until life goes Argentinian. As long as their biggest concern is whether to buy the 60" LCD or 72" Plasma, they'll only vote for the largesse they like & against the largesse they don't like.

That said, I **DO** think that Ron Paul has a shot at the primaries because of his anti-war message. No, I will not put any money on that, as the voting public is straight-up retarded & I cannot predict which soundbite will set them off.

 

[spec4]

I voted "I DO support Ron Paul, and I will vote for Obama if Ron Paul is NOT nominated.", but I could get behind Huntsman or Johnson (neither is likely to get nomination). If one of the R®-Socialists get the nomination, I'll vote for the guy who only has 4 years left, rather than give socialism a fresh 8 year stint.

Interesting position. IMO, given another four years, Obama would totally convert us to a socialist peoples republik, then he could either choose to be president for life, or have a well groomed socialist successor follow him. Anyone else in the running, though not perfect, would be infinitely better than Obama. Also, think SCOTUS when you are in the voting booth, it will come up.